Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Frontier Centre for Public Policy

No, Mr. Mayor outside organizers are not responsible for student radicalism

Published

7 minute read

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Philip Carl Salzman

While there are malevolent outside actors doing what they can with universities, the influential corruption is internal.

In his May 1 press conference on the university student demonstrations, occupations, and riots, New York Mayor Eric Adams blamed outside professional organizers for radicalizing our young people in universities in New York, on campuses throughout the country, and around the world. Exactly who these sinister outside forces are, the mayor did not specify.

Of course, the mayor is correct that there are outside professional organizers and agitators who have infiltrated campuses and encouraged even more extreme measures by demonstrators. Everyone sees the uniformity across the country of materials provided, such as tents and signs.

Yes, these are malevolent forces bent on transforming or destroying the United States. But funders and organizers are facilitators and enablers, not primary motivators. Mr. Adams is right in saying that professionals are behind these upheavals. But outside agitators and funders are not shaping the hearts and minds of university students. Rather, the professionals responsible for students’ mindsets are not external to universities; they are the employees of universities, who have been working on the students, miseducating them, throughout their entire university careers.

The satirical website Babylon Bee gets it right. With reference to the occupation of the Columbia University administration building, the Bee article headline is “Oh No! Indoctrinated Woke Extremists Destroy Woke Extremist Indoctrination Center.”

Quoting an imaginary university official, the Bee stated: “‘We didn’t see this coming,’ said one official. ‘After spending decades brainwashing young, impressionable people into volatile, savage revolutionaries, we were shocked to see them unleash such volatility and savagery while trying to launch a revolution. We wish there had been warning signs along the way.’”

Would that this were only humorous parody. Alas, it is an accurate representation of our universities in the 21st century. The many professors who have joined the demonstrators-occupiers-rioters, and who knows how many administrators and staff, is proof of the nature of today’s education.

The Bee continued:

“Students who engaged in the violent attack were thankful for the years of intense training they received from the institution they were now actively working to destroy. …

“At publishing time, the school’s leadership was confident that the government would do nothing to impede their ongoing efforts to make the country worse and more dangerous.”

The many pleas from well-meaning observers for the occupiers to desist so that students can return to their classes are beside the point. Their classes are where they were radicalized. The faculty itself is almost entirely radicalized.

Left-wing university monoculture today is nothing like the Enlightenment-based university that I attended in the mid-20th century, where the emphasis was on searching for the objective truth of reality using reason, evidence, and well-founded conclusions. Universities have now rejected the search for truth in favor of activism based on far-left Marxist “truths,” which may not be questioned.

Among these “truths” is the certainty that all people in the world are divided between evil, ruthless oppressors and exploiters and innocent, noble victims. In this class conflict, which is the only important feature of human life, black, indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC), LGBT people, females, the disabled, and Muslims are all innocent victims of whites, Asians, and Jews, heterosexuals, males, the able, and Christians.

“Victims” are represented in universities by grievance subjects, which at first leaked into but then flooded the humanities and social sciences. Feminist, Black, Queer, Islamic, and Disabled Studies do not exist to investigate truth and reality but to advocate for the victims they represent, and to spur change to the advantage of their designated category.

As part of this project, one common belief among grievance subjects, and now the humanities and social sciences, is that Western civilization must be abandoned as oppressive, and Western countries, such as the United States and Canada, must be transformed entirely or destroyed. Anti-colonial studies “prove” that these countries are in any case invalid and that the American and Canadian citizens are “colonial settlers” without legitimate standing.

University administrators are not innocent victims of these trends. On the contrary, they are primary instigators. They impose the “diversity, equity, and inclusion” manifestations of the “social justice” ideology, leading to official implementation of reverse racism, reverse sexism, and segregation. Discrimination against “oppressors” is not only tolerated; it is also systematically imposed and celebrated.

While student bodies have remained consistent in size, and the professoriat has, if anything, shrunk, not to mention the increased reliance on untenured, temporary “sessional” lecturers (a great financial saving), administrations have exploded in size, increasing to double or triple in most universities. One source of this is “DEI officers,” hired at every level and in every unit, at huge cost, to serve as political commissars policing thought and speech, so that no one can deviate from politically “correct” belief and expression.

Any professor, lecturer, or instructor professing opinions not in line with “social justice” and radical change are quickly identified and surrounded by DEI commissars and forced to confess error, go to re-education programs, lose privileges of various kinds—forget promotion and funding—and, if stubborn in deviation, termination outright, and banishment from the university. This puts great power in the hands of students, who only have to say that they are offended by what a professor says, and she (more rarely he today) is on the chopping block.

So while there are malevolent outside actors doing what they can with universities, the influential corruption is internal. If you block the outsiders, nothing will change. The universities are the source of the radicalism.

Philip Carl Salzman is Emeritus Professor of Anthropology at McGill University and Senior Fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

The “GST Holiday”… A Smokescreen For Scandal

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

A GST holiday sounded like it might be a good thing, but it turned out to be a gimmick to distract us from more serious issues, writes Marco Navarro-Genie. Courtesy Ivanoh Demers/Radio-Canada

One more racket from a government that rules by racket

The Prime Minister’s proposed GST holiday and $250 rebate scheme, initially estimated at $6.2 billion, is yet another calculated ploy to distract Canadians from the ethical failures of his government. Though the rebate portion was abandoned in Parliament, the GST holiday remains a superficial gesture in a government-induced affordability crisis.

This tactic highlights the government’s willingness to appear generous (with our money) while burdening taxpayers with increased debt to mask corruption and maintain power.

At the heart of this deflection lies the Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC) program, dubbed by critics as the “Green Slush Fund.”

The Auditor General recently revealed shocking improprieties within the program. The findings include that the federal ethics office reported at least 90 violations of ethics rules and nearly $400 million handed out to companies linked to SDTC board members. This gross misuse of public funds undermines the program’s goals of fostering green innovation, instead solidifying public skepticism about Ottawa’s ethical compass.

Efforts to hold the government accountable for its mismanagement have faced significant obstruction. Parliament has requested unredacted documents related to the scandal but has been met with resistance from the government. Trudeau’s administration has provided vague justifications for its refusal to comply, citing reasons such as protecting commercial confidentiality and national security.

The Speaker of the House, a Liberal MP, ruled that Parliament has the constitutional right to demand these documents. He ordered the government to release them unredacted. However, weeks have now passed, and the government continues its obstructionist tactics. Parliament has been stalled for weeks, effectively freezing legislative proceedings.

Under parliamentary rules, the House can halt all proceedings until the government complies with the Speaker’s ruling. However, the Speaker lacks direct enforcement power, leaving the opposition parties to hold the line. Last week, the government attempted to submit documents but presented them in a heavily redacted form, further eroding trust.

The standoff highlights the lengths the federal government will go to avoid transparency. By refusing to release the documents, the Liberals undermine Parliament’s authority and delay critical legislative work to protect themselves from scrutiny.

The two-month GST holiday passed with NDP support, removes the GST/HST from:

  • Prepared foods: Items like pre-made meals and restaurant dining.
  • Children’s essentials: Clothing, footwear, and diapers.
  • Select gift items: Categories remain vaguely defined.

However, basic groceries are already GST-exempt. According to food policy expert Sylvain Charlebois, the average Canadian household will save only a few dollars. This gesture is hardly a windfall in the context of surging inflation and housing costs — driven mainly by the government’s policies.

The fundamental aim of the GST holiday is not economic relief but political manipulation. By framing the Conservatives’ refusal to pass the broader $6.2 billion package as heartless, the government seeks to paint the Official Opposition as the Grinch who stole Christmas.

Liberal MPs have already taken to social media to attack the Conservatives for “denying Canadians a tax break.”

The government seems silent about the fact that the Bloc Quebecois also voted against the tax gimmick. Meanwhile, the NDP has shown a willingness to facilitate this naked vote-buying bid, further eroding its credibility as an opposition party.

The Conservatives have remained steadfast, demanding full transparency on the SDTC scandal before regular proceedings in the House can resume. This stance, however, has allowed the Liberals to weaponize affordability relief as a wedge issue.

The GST holiday’s costs, like most federal spending under this government, will disproportionately fall on Alberta, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia. These three provinces already bear the brunt of federal revenue extraction through resource wealth, only to see their contributions funnelled into vote-rich areas of central Canada to prop up an increasingly unpopular government. The move further stokes resentment in the West, damaging national unity.

How this standoff will resolve is anyone’s guess. The government appears content to drag its feet, betting that public fatigue will weaken opposition resolve. Yet it remains clear that Liberals are willing to misspend billions in borrowed money to hide how they’ve misused hundreds of millions on partisan rewards and cronies. This cynical strategy prioritizes the political survival of their arrangement with the NDP over fiscal responsibility and democratic accountability.

For democracy to function, Parliament must assert its supremacy, hold this minority government to account, and ensure transparency in the face of systemic corruption and mismanagement. The NDP’s collaboration with the offenders may make it impossible, however. Allowing the government to defy Parliament and the Speaker’s ruling sets a dangerous precedent, weakening the foundations of Canadian democracy.

Marco Navarro-Genie is VP Policy and Research at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. He is co-author, with Barry Cooper, of COVID-19: The Politics of a Pandemic Moral Panic (2020).

Continue Reading

Business

Base Policies on Reality – Not Myths, Models, Misinformation and Fearmongering

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Paul Driessen

Donald Trump and JD Vance have a mandate on energy, economic, immigration and other issues that won them 50% of popular, 58% of electoral and 82% of US county votes.

On January 20 they will begin tackling the numerous problems bequeathed them by the Biden-Harris Administration and Washington Deep State: illegal immigration of criminals, terrorists and opportunists; outrageous government spending by bloated federal agencies; wars and crises across the globe; and federal and state politicians and bureaucrats determined to slow or stymie their every move.

Mr. Trump will let the DOGE out, to cut government waste. Pundits and political pros are offering advice across the board. My suggestions center on the “climate crisis” and the destructive policies it has justified.

1. First and foremost, withdraw the United States from the 2015 Paris climate straitjacket. Its terms and subsequent agreements require that the USA and other industrialized nations switch from fossil fuels to “clean renewable” energy and de-modernize agricultural and other practices, to eliminate “greenhouse gas” (GHG) emissions. That would bring blackouts, de-industrialization and job losses.

It would also mean now-rich nations must pay developing countries $300 billion per year for climate damage “compensation” and renewable energy financing. But China, India and other developing countries need not cut emissions and will continue using coal, oil and natural gas in ever-increasing quantities, to modernize, create vibrant economies and lift more people out of poverty. That would mean even zero fossil fuel use by Western nations would not reduce global atmospheric GHG levels at all.

Better yet, send the Paris document to Congress for Article II Senate advice and two-thirds consent. President Obama’s sly move of calling this accord a mere “agreement” that required no Senate “treaty” review cannot be countenanced. Paris was among the most far-reaching, impactful agreements in US history. It affects our energy, economy, jobs, living standards, healthcare, national security and more. It’s a treaty and should be treated as such.

2. Equally important, eliminate the institutionalized junk science, assertions and fearmongering that fossil fuel use has caused an existential climate crisis for people and planet. Begin by re-examining the 2009 Obama Environmental Protection Agency “Endangerment Finding” that carbon dioxide “pollution” threatens the American people’s health and welfare.

Fossil fuels provide 80% of America’s energy; raw materials for thousands of petrochemical products; and the foundation of our economy, health and welfare. Their emissions certainly contribute to the 0.04% CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere, but this miracle molecule enables and spurs plant growth, thereby feeding the animal kingdom and making nearly all life possible.

EPA’s convoluted finding defied science and reality. It allowed the Obama and Biden Administrations to justify biased climate “research,” anti-fossil fuel regulations, sprawling wind and solar installations, and the transformation of America’s entire energy system and economy.

The Endangerment Decision was likely the most “major federal action” in US history, yet it has no real statutory basis. It clearly defies the Supreme Court’s decisions in West Virginia v. EPA, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council and Loper Bright Enterprises, Inc., v. Raimondo.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin should direct the agency to formally and publicly reexamine the secretive process that EPA employed to ensure its “endangerment” decision – with no contrarian science, evidence, questions or public hearings permitted to challenge its preordained edict. A fair, balanced, scientific review would demolish the faulty Finding and bring the agency into compliance with SCOTUS rulings.

The President-elect’s appointment of energy and environmental “czars” and National Energy Council will build on those important steps, help restore reality and common sense to America’s energy and climate policies, rein in other Biden-era regulations and executive actions, and advance Mr. Trump’s promise of US energy dominance and economic resurgence.

Other actions the new Administration and Congress should take include the following.

3. Utilize the Congressional Review Act to reverse eleventh-hour Biden-Harris regulatory sprees – such as its ban on further coal leasing in the Powder River Basin.

4. Open all US non-National-Park areas for no/low impact evaluation and exploration, to identify prospects warranting more detailed assessments for critically needed metals and minerals. Most of these public land areas were deliberately made off-limits to such evaluations by Congress, courts and the Deep State, making it impossible to weigh surface values against potential for world-class subsurface deposits.

China’s recent ban on exports of several vital metals and minerals underscores yet again why America must not rely on adversaries for raw materials critical for US defense, aerospace, battery, AI, wind, solar and other industries – especially when those materials could be found and developed in America, under the world’s best pollution control and environmental protection rules, technologies and practices.

5. Reopen the Delaware-sized “coastal plain” of Alaska’s South-Carolina-sized Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil and gas leasing, exploration and drilling. Congressional legislation in 2017 explicitly allowed those activities, but President Biden unilaterally cancelled all leases and permits in 2023.

6. Require that applicants for climate change research and modeling grants demonstrate that their previous models and studies have been confirmed by actual temperature, drought and extreme weather data and evidence; and provide computer codes and analyses so that reviewers can view and evaluate their work.

7. Define “sustainability” to reflect complete global life-cycle raw material requirements, mining and processing needs and impacts, energy required to produce raw materials and manufacture energy and other systems, and land, air and water pollution resulting from all those activities. This will ensure that wind, solar, battery, electric vehicle and other technologies are not classified as “clean, renewable and sustainable” merely because they don’t emit CO2 or pollution after they start operating.

8. End subsidies and fast-track permitting for wind and solar installations – especially offshore wind, where raw material requirements and costs are many times higher than for onshore turbines and far more excessive than that for combined-cycle gas generators.

9. Require that wind and solar projects, and associated backup battery and transmission line projects, meet the same environmental review standards and requirements as required for oil, gas, coal and metals mining, and nuclear projects, regarding local, regional and global air and water pollution, land and habitat destruction, wildlife disturbance and loss, and post-project equipment removal and land reclamation.

Even better, cancel the entire offshore wind program. Its electricity is weather-dependent and ultra-expensive, threatens wildlife and fisheries, and requires unjustifiable amounts of raw materials.

10. Expand and streamline programs to bring new nuclear power plants online, especially small modular reactors – to meet rapidly expanding needs for abundant, reliable, affordable electricity for data centers, artificial intelligence, and increasingly electrified households, technologies and industries.

11. Terminate Diversity Equity Inclusion, Environment Social Governance, and Environmental and Climate Justice programs, offices and funding. They only serve as twisted justifications for arbitrarily selecting preferred companies and communities that are often less qualified to serve public health and safety.

There is much more to be done. But this is a solid beginning for reducing or eliminating needless, excessive and harmful pseudo science, grants, policies, practices and regulations – and restoring government of, by and for the People.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and author of books and articles on energy, environment, climate and human rights issues.

Continue Reading

Trending

X